THE SMART NEWS SOURCE | Feb 10 2012 21:45 | LAST UPDATED Feb 10 2012 21:45 |
|
There's a lot more in the government's new Bill on broadcasting than whether a tax will replace the TV license. At heart, it's a super-ambitious drive to redesign the broadcasting landscape. This is largely through a major fund to be set up by the envisaged levy of up to 1% on income or turnover. It's the 'developmental state' seeking to shape mass communications. That's not a bad thing as such, but the Bill is a rush job, full of grammatical errors and some serious problems. Among the significant provisions: As wide-ranging as they are, the Bill's proposals do not go far enough: However, off the table is the more radical notion of dismantling the megalith SABC, and part decentralising it into several competing public broadcasters, with governance boards also operating at the regional and provincial levels. But the system of staggered terms of office for board members is left out of the picture -- allowing for possible political 'capture' via clean sweep appointments and dismissals. Also, a section of the Bill confusingly reads that the board should submit editorial policies to Icasa, but, in the same sentence, says "to the minister". If the intention is the minister, this is a step backward from the status quo. The minister is empowered to give directives to the SABC in cases of dysfunctionality -- but there is no requirement that these should be transparent in the sense of being tabled for public scrutiny and comment. In this regard, the bill is definitely a retrograde step. The draft law also implies that the minister can give directives to community broadcasters. It further specifies that stations in this sector have to adhere to the Public Finance Management Act (without limiting this stricture to their spending of taxpayers' funds). These represent an unwarranted intrusion into civil society. Some of the problems in the draft law are due to its origins. There had been widespread expectations that the Department of Communications would follow the logical path of a Green and White Paper, before proceeding to law. Instead the government moved straight from a Discussion Paper, presented in late July to the current Bill, just over two months since closing date for comments on the Discussion Paper. That consultation itself may have been a charade -- for example, the Bill still includes an embarrassingly erroneous definition of "digital", despite this having been pointed out in at least one submission about the Discussion Paper. More significantly, it's not a formality to go through best practice policy procedures before reaching legislation. For example, the Bill currently leaves it to Icasa to decide on advertising levels for the new regional TV channels, and for MDDA to decide on criteria for allocating money. Lack of explicit guidance on these issues is problematic. In the new-found spirit of assertiveness, the Parliamentary Committee of Communications should send the bill back to government, and call for an elaborated policy document as a prior step to drafting a law. RSS feed for this column: http://www.mg.co.za/rss/guy-berger TOPICS IN THIS ARTICLE
comment guidelines
|
Client Media Releases
IN THIS WEEK'S PAPER
SUBSCRIBE: - Paper edition - iPad edition (NEW!) - Kindle edition - Digital edition Read stories online ![]() @mailandguardian - Top stories & newsflashes @NicDawes - M&G editor Nic Dawes @ChrisRoperZA - Editor, M&G Online @amabhungane - M&G Centre for Investigative Journ @mgfeed - Our whole news feed Advertisements |








